The EU: Hypocrisy, Hostility and Prejudice

EU’s hostile fixation with Israel and its settlements is based on a series of deliberately misleading and flawed legal and political assumptions.

The current dispute between the European Union and Israel emanates from the publication on June 30, 2013, of guidelines by the European Commission on the eligibility of Israeli entities, in territories administered by Israel since June 1967 as a result of the Six-Day War, for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards. The current commission notice reflects a number of decisions taken recently by EU bodies on how past EU-Israel agreements are to be applied.1

On December 10, 2012, the EU Foreign Affairs Council determined that “all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967.”

The EU statement added that the determination also conforms to the EU’s long-standing position that “Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and with the non-recognition by the EU of Israel’s sovereignty over the occupied territories, irrespective of their legal status under domestic Israeli law.”2

Pursuant to the European Commission’s June 30 notice, the EU published a directive to its 28 member states, effective July 19, 2013, forbidding funding, cooperation, scholarships, research funds, or prizes to anyone residing in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The regulation requires that any agreement or contract signed by an EU country with Israel include a clause stating that the settlements are not part of the State of Israel and therefore are not part of the agreement.3

The directive includes a territorial clause stating that all agreements will be valid only within Israeli borders recognized by the European Union, meaning the borders prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. It forbids cooperation by European Union members with private or governmental bodies located beyond the “Green Line.” The European Commission notice states that its aim is “to ensure the respect of EU positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the EU of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967.”

This directive complements intensive activity by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, devoted almost exclusively to the issue of Israel’s settlements, and repeated calls to EU foreign ministers to fully enforce EU legislation regarding the labelling of products from Israeli settlements, with a view to preventing such products from benefiting from lower tariffs, and to rendering them easily visible to European consumers and importers. As stated by Ashton: “Our consumers have the right to an informed choice; this initiative will help support our retailers to provide this. The correct labeling of products is necessary to ensure our consumers are not being misled by false information.”4

As such, the publication of the commission notice is the culmination of a concerted policy initiative led by Ashton, with active and substantive encouragement by the EU member governments and the official EU representation to Israel, directed against Israel’s settlements in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank], the aim of which is to press the Israeli government into making territorial and political concessions, by harming the products coming from the settlements.

Flawed Legal and Political Assumptions

This unprecedented and hostile EU fixation with Israel and its settlements, to the almost total exclusion of the other pressing issues in the Middle East, Europe, and throughout the world, is based on a series of long-standing and deliberately misleading and flawed legal and political assumptions regarding the illegality of Israel’s settlements and the status of the pre-1967 armistice lines as Israel’s border.

These assumptions are all the more misleading and misguided in that they totally negate or deliberately flout the historic and legal rights granted by the international community, including Europe, to Israel and the Jewish people in a series of international agreements and commitments. The assumptions totally ignore the indigenous rights of the Jewish people in the area, as protected by international declarations.

Similarly, they negate the very positions supported by the European states that endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 calling for “secure and recognized boundaries,” and negate the EU’s own commitments as signatory and witness to the Oslo Accords, to honour the content of those accords, and not to predetermine and undermine specific negotiating issues including the final status of the territories, borders, settlements, Jerusalem, and other issues.

As such, the present EU policy, including the commission notice, specifically undermines the negotiating process by taking sides, and by pre-determining the negotiating issues of settlements, Jerusalem and borders. As such, this fixation prejudices and obviates any claim by the EU to impartiality, and precludes the EU from performing any function within the negotiating process.

Israel’s Rights Cannot Be Denied

The legality of Israel’s settlements stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and accepted by the international community. These rights cannot be denied or placed in question.

They include the declaration unanimously adopted by the League of Nations, including the major European states, in the 1920 San Remo Declaration, affirming the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical area of the Land of Israel as well as close Jewish settlement throughout.5 This included the areas of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. This was subsequently affirmed internationally in the League of Nations 1922 Palestine Mandate instrument,6 and accorded continued validity, up to the present day, by Article 80 of the UN Charter which determines the continued validity of the rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations).7

The “1967 Borders” Do Not Exist

The “1967 borders” do not exist, and have never existed. The 1949 Armistice Agreements entered into by Israel and its Arab neighbors, establishing the armistice demarcation lines, clearly stated that these lines “are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” Accordingly, they cannot be accepted or declared to be Israel’s border.8

UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) called upon the parties to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and specifically stressed the need to negotiate in order to achieve “secure and recognized boundaries.”9 The European state members of the Security Council approved that resolution.

The Geneva Convention Does Not Apply to Israel’s Settlements

The EU assumption regarding the illegality of Israel’s settlement policy is legally flawed, and ignores authoritative sources regarding the provenance and interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). This article prohibits the mass transfer of population into occupied territory, as practiced by Germany during the Second World War. It was neither relevant, nor was it ever intended to apply to Israel’s settlements.

According to the authoritative and official commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross, published in 1958,10 as well as opinions by prominent international jurists, Article 49 relates to deportations of over 40 million people subjected to forced migration, evacuation, displacement, and expulsion. The vast numbers of people affected and the aims and purposes behind such a population movement speak for themselves. There is nothing to link such circumstances to Israel’s settlement policy.11

One may further ask if this is not a misreading, misunderstanding, or even distortion of that article and its context.

Contradicting the Oslo Accords

In the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israel and the PLO undertook to negotiate inter alia the issues of borders, Jerusalem and settlements, and undertook not act to change the status of the territories pending outcome of the permanent status negotiations. The EU signed and witnessed this agreement, and as such cannot now undermine it or take a position that is clearly ultra vires the terms of the agreement.12

Israel and the PLO agreed in the 1995 Interim Agreement (together with the EU, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, the U.S. and Norway as witnesses) on a division of their respective jurisdictions in the West Bank into areas A and B (Palestinian jurisdiction) and area C (Israeli jurisdiction).13 They defined the respective powers and responsibilities of each side in the areas they control. Israel’s powers and responsibilities in Area C include all aspects regarding its settlements – all this pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. This division was accepted and agreed upon by the Palestinians, and acknowledged by the international community, including the EU and the UN.

The Palestinians entered into the various agreements constituting what is known as the “Oslo Accords” in the full knowledge that Israel’s settlements existed in the areas, and that settlements would be one of the issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. Furthermore, the Oslo Accords impose no limitation on either side regarding planning, zoning, or construction of homes and communities in their respective areas of jurisdiction and control, pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

The repeated use by the EU of the term “occupied Arab,” or “Palestinian territories” to refer to the area of Judea and Samaria has no basis in law or fact. Prior to 1967, there was no Palestinian state in the West Bank, which was under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The area has never been determined to be Palestinian territory. Thus the continued EU usage of the term runs against the very concept of negotiations to resolve the dispute regarding these areas, supported by the EU, to determine their permanent status.

The EU Fixation with Israel’s Settlements

The EU fixation with Israel’s settlements, and the action presently being taken against Israel pursuant to its directive, is clearly incompatible with the EU’s standing as a member of the International Quartet, and serves to neutralize any pretentions the EU might have to serve a useful function in the negotiating process between Israel and the Palestinians.

The EU cannot presume to come with clean hands and claim to be an impartial element in the negotiating process. The EU has taken sides and as such, in its actions against Israel, it is undermining the negotiating process. Moreover, the rigid fixation of the EU to assert that its agreements with Israel must reflect the non-recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over any territory beyond the 1967 lines stands out in contrast to European policy toward other conflicts.

The EU has many free trade agreements and other commercial understandings with countries whose territorial boundaries are in dispute. The EU has been negotiating a free trade agreement with India, yet its applicability to Kashmir is not under discussion. An EU fisheries agreement from 2005 allows European fisherman to operate in Western Sahara, even though the EU does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty in this territory. In Israel, EU policy is likely to be perceived as a case of double standards, according to which Israel is not granted the same rights as other states, in defiance of the principle of sovereign equality.

Finally, the position and actions of the EU against Israel are all the more unfortunate and regrettable in light of the tragic Jewish history in Europe, which cannot be ignored or forgotten. One might have expected that realization of this factor would guide the wisdom and logic of the actions of the EU.

About the Author

Amb. Alan Baker is Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, as well as agreements and peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. He served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 12

(8)
elliot (aliyahu),
July 24, 2013 2:32 AM

It's Israel's responsibility to make a lasting peace.

All legalities and biblical declarations fly in the face of the sufferings of both Israelis and palestinian arabs. As the "holier" of the parties, it is Israel's responsibility to make a peace that solves everyone's problems in the region. That will require that neighbors have peace and space to prosper. Do unto others... As long as the arab population is not settled Israel will not be at peace. There is a path that the Orthodox has not tried- and that requires living-up to its commandments to be a light and to grant its neighbors peace despite its neighbors ignorance and hatred of Israel. This article is just more tit-for-tat, stooping to Israel's enemies' level.

anon,
July 25, 2013 5:53 PM

your next door neighbor

If your next door neighbor wanted nothing more than your death, are you sure your first act would be the "holy" act of making peace? In such a case, your first obligation (making it the truly "holy" action) is self-preservation. Making peace is an unaffordable luxury at that point. But if you take the action you suggest, I'm sure your neighbor will happily eulogize you.
"when one is rising up to kill you, rise up earlier to kill him" San ~ 72B [IF there is no alternative]

Arby Muller,
July 28, 2013 12:42 AM

Commonsense first

I agree completely, anon. as the "holiest" of the parties in this never-ending stand-off, Israel has one duty only- the protection of its people and the integrity of its land. Surrounded by barbaric hordes that know no limit to evil, butchery and indeed which are strangers to decency, humanity and the common human experience, Israel owes no one apologies. The EU is and has always been a morally corrupt, agenda-driven cotery of wannabe International players. They are pathetic. They speak drivel and pander to national socialist genetics built into the European psych.

(7)
Anonymous,
July 22, 2013 8:52 PM

EU HAS LOST ITS MIND OVER THE WEST BANK IN ISRAEL.

I HAVE READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE & HAVE REACHED THE ONLY CONCLUSION I CAN THINK ABOUT SAME,I E,EU DECISIONS ON ISRAEL & THE WEST BANK CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS B--LS--T.THE EU & THE WORLD BETTER THINK THINGS OVER CAREFULLY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE & WILL ULTIMATELY RESULT IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS ,IF NOT MILLIONS OF UNNECESSARY DEATHS.

(6)
hooMati,
July 22, 2013 4:37 AM

Lack of knowledge in the world is our fault

Why don't we, who are the "Light to the nations," tell the world that the Old City of Jerusalem is in the "territories". Does the world dispute that Jerusalem has belonged to the fake "Palestinians" which Jews are the only real "Palestinians?"

(5)
jan,
July 21, 2013 10:26 PM

Israel vs Palestina

Hello,Every sunday, on the Marketplace of my hometown (in The Netherlands), there are people handling leaflets "demanding" the liberation of Palestina. One time I engaged into a discussion with one of these fellows. I told him that each time Israel gave land back, Israel was thanked with bombs and terrorist attacks. The guy didn't even hear me and started his "robot-mode-taped-lecture" (:-)) about how Israel this and Israel that. I got fed up and told him I found him to be anti-semitic. His reply was that I was a f...ing Jew (which I am not, nor f...ing, nor Jew).Thank you for your article, it gives me amuniton for the next time I feel wasting my time with these idiotsJan

(4)
Frankie,
July 21, 2013 9:11 PM

EU is wrong and ignores "Palestinian" concerns

The EU is completely wrong, as this article proves. In addition to its blatant bias, it ignores completely the fact the tens of thousands of "Palestinians" earn their living working for the very industries the EU wishes to punish.

Dvirah,
July 23, 2013 3:28 PM

The Proof of the Pudding

It is this very blindness on the part of the EU, and other such "Israel-bashers" which proves their hypocrasy.
Re negociations, I've stated elsewere that psychological analysis yields a mental age of 3-4 for the Palestinian leadership. One cannot negociate with a toddler.

(3)
Jossef,
July 21, 2013 7:00 PM

Too Much Legalize

Alan Baker, when you write an article for the general audience you need to translate all the legal vocabulary and to a common language. This article is acccurate but written for deplomats not for an average person.

Sonny Kosky,
July 22, 2013 11:01 AM

Keep to the legal argument

No - we need to stick to the correct legal argument. The EU should be challenged on every point by the legal agreements as already outlined. Why isn't there a mechanism to do just that in the EU. And next time the European elections come up we should challenge the candidates on where they stand vis a vis Israel.

(2)
Stanley Tee,
July 21, 2013 6:48 PM

Finally ....

finally, a prominent Israeli tells the truth! Now if only we can get the Israeli government to say all this LOUD AND CLEAR!! Instead of begging the EU and grovelling at Obama's feet and promising Kerry just about everything he demands, Netanyahu needs to stand up to all of them and say NO! These are our rights! Sure, we are prepared to negotiate away some of those rights in the name of peace, but that's up to us to decide, it's not up to you to demand.Instead, we give the appearance of weakness, which makes the EU and the rest of the world think that we have no right to Judea and Samaria and all of Jerusalem. It's more than past time to stop!

(1)
Frank Adam,
July 21, 2013 3:51 PM

File a Test Case

Stop arguing and get even: use the legal openings of the €U's own courts - NOT the Council of Europe Court of Human Rights.Get a Jewish NGO like "UN Watch" to raise a doctrine in €U court, "Why should these new rules on Israeli institutions in the ex -Jordanian West Bank otherwise the PA territories; not also apply to Moroccan institutions in West Sahara otherwise the Saharawi territories, and the Republic of North Cyprus otherwise the Turkish occupied and settled territory of Northern Cyprus?" This at least will poke Turkey for the Mavi Marmora and remind the Arab World they can also be got at. Best of all google Zaslavsky's power towers and build one at Timna - then the World will fall over itself to leave the petro-sheikh era.

My nephew is having his bar mitzvah and I am thinking of a gift. In the old days, the gift of choice was a fountain pen, then a Walkman, and today an iPod. But I want to get him something special. What do you suggest?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Since this event celebrates the young person becoming obligated in the commandments, the most appropriate gift is, naturally, one that gives a deeper understanding of the Jewish heritage and enables one to better perform the mitzvot! (An iPod, s/he can get anytime.)

With that in mind, my favorite gift idea is a tzedakah (charity) box. Every Jew should have a tzedakah box in his home, so he can drop in change on a regular basis. The money can then be given to support a Jewish school or institution -- in your home town or in Israel (every Jews’ “home town”). There are beautiful tzedakah boxes made of wood and silver, and you can see a selection here.

For boys, a really beautiful gift is a pair of tefillin, the black leather boxes which contain parchments of Torah verses, worn on the bicep and the head. Owning a pair of Tefillin (and wearing them!) is an important part of Jewish identity. But since they are expensive (about $400), not every Bar Mitzvah boy has a pair. To make sure you get kosher Tefillin, see here.

In 1944, the Nazis perpetrated the Children's Action in the Kovno Ghetto. That day and the next, German soldiers conducted house-to-house searches to round up all children under age 12 (and adults over 55) -- and sent them to their deaths at Fort IX. Eventually, the Germans blew up every house with grenades and dynamite, on suspicion that Jews might be in hiding in underground bunkers. They then poured gasoline over much of the former ghetto and incinerated it. Of the 37,000 Jews in Kovno before the Holocaust, less than 10 percent survived. One of the survivors was Rabbi Ephraim Oshri, who later published a stirring collection of rabbinical responsa, detailing his life-and-death decisions during the Holocaust. Also on this date, in 1937, American Jews held a massive anti-Nazi rally in New York City's Madison Square Garden.

In a letter to someone who found it difficult to study Torah, the 20th century sage the Chazon Ish wrote:

"Some people find it hard to be diligent in their Torah studies. But the difficulty persists only for a short while - if the person sincerely resolves to submerge himself in his studies. Very quickly the feelings of difficulty will go away and he will find that there is no worldly pleasure that can compare with the pleasure of studying Torah diligently."

Although actions generally have much greater impact than thoughts, thoughts may have a more serious effect in several areas.

The distance that our hands can reach is quite limited. The ears can hear from a much greater distance, and the reach of the eye is much farther yet. Thought, however, is virtually limitless in its reach. We can think of objects millions of light years away, and so we have a much greater selection of improper thoughts than of improper actions.

Thought also lacks the restraints that can deter actions. One may refrain from an improper act for fear of punishment or because of social disapproval, but the privacy of thought places it beyond these restraints.

Furthermore, thoughts create attitudes and mindsets. An improper action creates a certain amount of damage, but an improper mindset can create a multitude of improper actions. Finally, an improper mindset can numb our conscience and render us less sensitive to the effects of our actions. We therefore do not feel the guilt that would otherwise come from doing an improper act.

We may not be able to avoid the occurrence of improper impulses, but we should promptly reject them and not permit them to dwell in our mind.

Today I shall...

make special effort to avoid harboring improper thoughts.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...